Big Brother is Watching You

[O Really]

I saw Arlo Guthrie in concert in the early 1970s. At one point he played a few notes from Alice's Restaurant. When people clapped he stopped and joking scolded us, "That's the mistake we made with Nixon - We applauded before we heard the tune."
.

Cute joke...but I garon-tee that everybody in that venue had indeed heard the tune more than once. Sometimes the applause may not be for what you think.

[Boatrocker]

. . . I'm my own source....CISM certified baby. Not only that, I've supervised/hired/fired civil service and contractors. You might say I understand the culture and rules.

I might say I'm King of The Moon, too. It would have as much credibility.

After much research I have decided you are the king of the moon. I mean, there wasn't any evidence you weren't king of the moon.

Don't believe it? Prove I'm not!

[Boatrocker]

...Sometimes the applause may not be for what you think.

RonJ has claimed "knowledge of what he speaks, at least in regard to IT/security issues", along with his multiple declarations of some mysterious victory, but he's yet to actually demonstrate either.

It's a common tactic in these forums- all of them- for some goober to blow in every so often and declare himself an expert, with vast education, experience and knowledge that no one else possesses, ready to slay everyone with his wit and superiority and be crowned emperor of the forum. As often as not, they also claim to be independently wealthy and successful.
I usually just write it off to a very small penis.

[neoplacebo]

I've always wished that I could play the piano, but, alas, I cannot. Because of this, I suffer periodically from pianist envy.

[neoplacebo]

Excellent!

[homerfobe]

...for some goober to blow......I usually just write it off to a very small penis.

Yeah we know you think a lot about penis's, and we know there is no other above you when it comes to expert knowledge .

[Boatrocker]

LOL! I knew exactly who would hit the stinkbait.

[homerfobe]

LOL! I knew exactly who would hit the stinkbait.

because you were hungry and went fishing?

[Boatrocker]

That's why we call it "stinkbait."

[homerfobe]

Could be, it sure worked. Have you ever posted to this thread before the word "penis" appeared in it? I can't recall your doing so and looked though your posts as far back as April. Seems the word is like a flame is to a moth for you, nttawwt.

LOL! I knew exactly who would hit the stinkbait.

That's why we call it "stinkbait."

The only reason I reply to any of your posts is because all you queer lovers like to talk about is comparing others to your love of sex organs.
And when I do post, you and Vrede take your stinkbait and stalk me like a flame to a moth.

And to paraphrase the Great Vrede's wisdom, to liken a queer hater to a queer is sheer stupidity.

[Ombudsman]

Could be, it sure worked. Have you ever posted to this thread before the word "penis" appeared in it? I can't recall your doing so and looked though your posts as far back as April. Seems the word is like a flame is to a moth for you, nttawwt.

LOL! I knew exactly who would hit the stinkbait.

That's why we call it "stinkbait."

The only reason I reply to any of your posts is because all you queer lovers like to talk about is comparing others to your love of sex organs.
And when I do post, you and Vrede take your stinkbait and stalk me like a flame to a moth.

And to paraphrase the Great Vrede's wisdom, to liken a queer hater to a queer is sheer stupidity.

Just shut up already weirdo.

[homerfobe]

Just shut up already weirdo.

Go fornicate thyself. You got a backbone like a dog, I have confidence you'll have no problem.

[Ombudsman]

Just shut up already weirdo.

Go fornicate thyself. You got a backbone like a dog, I have confidence you'll have no problem.

That doesn't even make sense. What's wrong with you anyway?

[Wneglia]

From the first article "The Accelerating Assault on Journalism" -

"U.S. soldier Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning's 35-year sentence represents the harshest punishment issued to date for providing media with evidence of government wrongdoing (Forbes, 8/21/13). She is the first whistleblower to be convicted under the Espionage Act, ratifying the new reality that those who give the press information that the government wants to keep secret will henceforth be treated as spies."

Ah, if only life was so simple. We could all pick up our torches and pitchforks and run to the barricades in defense of poor little mistreated Chelsea, who after all only did a favor to us all in disclosing her "evidence."
Interesting word, "evidence." If she were presenting evidence in a court, the evidence would have to be direct and not hearsay, relevant to the claim, and substantiated as authentic and accurate. Further, the claim would have to be specifically related to unlawful. In my world, you can't just claim your employer treated you badly, you have to show s/he did something unlawful, like grabbing your ass. For evidence, you have to show that s/he actually grabbed your ass. You can't use the fact that you heard s/he grabbed someone else's ass to substantiate your own claim, unless that person also comes forward.

Undoubtedly some parts of her document trove contained such evidence of somebody doing something unlawful. Had she limited herself to those items, I might also hold a pitchfork. For example, I found disclosures of abuses at Abu Gharib to be a good thing. But how many of the "hundreds of thousands" of State Department messages do you suppose would meet the "evidence" test? And how many of those that were disclosed without actually showing anything unlawful did actual or potential damage to US international affairs?

And of course, Chelsea didn't disclose in court. She picked Wikileaks, whose primary purpose probably isn't to investigate and resolve issues to the benefit of the US. She also didn't get the "evidence" legally (she may have had legal access, but the downloading part wasn't). She made no apparent effort to make sure what she disclosed was in fact unlawful, or that any unrelated but potentially damaging parts were redacted. Etc. and yada. So to summarize - She steals classified information, sends it to a foreign entity who makes no pretense of acting in the best interest of the US, knowing the disclosure could cause damage to the US. I'll save my pitchfork and torch for the next article about the Mosques.

[O Really]

So - turns out the DEA has had access to way more phone records for way longer than NSA, and has even had embedded AT&T employees helping them sort through them. (Google "Hemisphere Project") My question is, where are they hiding the parts of the sky that have surely fallen over the past years they've been doing this?

[O Really]

Oh, I know about the tragedy of the so-called "war on drugs," and have long opposed it. If we're talking about whether the effort itself is well-thought or well-implemented, or even well-intentioned, I will consistently support getting rid of practically all current anti-drug laws as well as re-assigning those who enforce them to something more worthwhile. But the article isn't really about DEA, it's about data collection.

[Boatrocker]

Intentions aside, RICO turned out to be a pretty good template for the Un-Patriot Act.

[O Really]

...But the article isn't really about DEA, it's about data collection.

Yes, data collection in service to something we both strongly oppose and no way to know that it hasn't been an integral part of the worst elements of it. Whatever point you were trying to make in defense of what the NSA does eludes me.

Actually, I'm not so much defending NSA as continuing to lament chicken-little responses. Having said that, collection of data does not in itself mean the data is misused or that misuse caused actual harm. It could be misused, and some misuse could cause harm. I'm sure there are examples. But in disagreement with many, including ACLU, I don't find it inherently awful that NSA has access to information collected by the service providers.

[O Really]

I don't claim to know there's been no harm. But my perspective is not to focus on the harm or potential therefor, but on the value of the agency. I think that in the 60 or so years it's been around, NSA has done a lot of good work- a lot more good than bad. I think that having some agency like them is a necessary part of national defense. Administrations come and go, appointed heads of agencies come and go - some are good, some are Brownies, but at the production level, NSA provides a valuable service. I think when abuses are discovered, those responsible should be sacked, or prosecuted as appropriate. Prosecuted if it's intentional, sacked if it's not. I think you can't run an agency with their mission by popular vote or consensus. I don't think you can run an agency with their mission without a lot of confidentiality. I am aghast by the sloppy measures they had in place to allow a Snowden - and who knows who all else - to rummage, pilfer, and publish information that was classified. (Yes, I know, in the NSA even lunch menus are "classified" but I'm talking about real stuff.) I think some new leadership is past due, and that some cleaning up is in order. I think that cleaning up should be done by people who understand the mission of the agency and the intelligence gathering business in general, not by the Guardian or man-in-the-street interviews. And I don't think NSA having access to information collected by the service providers is inherently a bad thing.

[O Really]

You chose to cite an agency that has done enormous harm to our nation and mysteriously claim that you know that there's been no harm from its collection of data. That's the part I don't get.

Sorry, I meant the DEA. I will grant that the NSA has done some good, we just differ on how much intrusive power to give it towards its missions, not all of them, that we agree are positive.

I think the DEA is worthless as an agency. Not because the people are necessarily bad, but because their mission is generally worthless. But I would think that if you're dealing with drug dealers, access to wide-reaching communications records would be a pretty valuable tool.